Tutolo v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Denise D. Tutolo sought disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner’s July 17, 2018 decision that she was not disabled before December 15, 2015. The administrative law judge found that Tutolo had several severe physical impairments, including cervical spine conditions, obesity, and left-knee problems. The judge found no severe mental impairment, assessed a capacity for a limited range of light work, found that Tutolo could not perform her past relevant work, but concluded at the fifth step of the disability process that she could perform other jobs in the national economy.

Tutolo had previously received a finding of disability beginning December 15, 2015. The dispute in this case concerned only the period from June 26, 2011, through December 15, 2015. Tutolo moved for judgment on the pleadings, an early decision based on the court record. The motion was unopposed. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended remanding the case solely because the administrative law judge who handled Tutolo’s hearing was allegedly not properly appointed under the Constitution. The Commissioner timely objected.

Appointment-based argument

The Court found clear error in the recommended appointment-based remand. Tutolo had not raised the constitutional challenge during the administrative proceedings. The Court found persuasive the reasoning of other courts that such a challenge generally must be raised before the administrative law judge or Appeals Council. It also concluded that Social Security Ruling 19–1p referred to timely challenges raised at one of those administrative levels. The Court therefore did not remand on the appointment issue.

Mental-impairment evaluation

The Court held that the administrative law judge failed to follow the required regulatory process for evaluating mental impairments. That process requires the judge to assess any medically determinable mental impairment, rate functional limitations in specified areas, and include those findings in the written decision. The administrative law judge stated only that Tutolo had no severe mental impairment and relied on two evaluations, without showing that the required process had been applied. The Court concluded that remand was warranted because it could not determine whether the decision applied the correct legal standards and was supported by substantial evidence.

Evaluation of medical opinions

The Court also found deficiencies in the treatment of the medical opinions. As to Tutolo’s treating physician, Dr. Blanco, the administrative law judge discounted the opinion based partly on a check-off format, alleged inconsistency with treatment notes, and Tutolo’s work history. The Court noted that the Appeals Council had previously found that the treatment notes did not show good functioning and instead documented several symptoms and abnormal findings. On remand, the administrative law judge was directed to consider Dr. Blanco’s opinion more fully and, if declining to give it controlling weight, to consider the regulatory factors governing the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion.

Regarding Dr. Pelczar-Wissner’s consultative orthopedic opinion, the Court found substantial evidence supporting the rejection of one limitation concerning lifting and standing or walking. But the administrative law judge had not addressed the opinion’s other postural, manipulative, and reaching limitations. Because an administrative law judge must give good reasons when rejecting all or part of a medical opinion, the Court directed further consideration of those limitations.

Carpal tunnel syndrome

The Court found that the administrative law judge mentioned Tutolo’s carpal tunnel syndrome and limited her to frequent rather than constant handling and fingering, but did not make specific findings about her ability to feel or use her hands for fine or gross manipulation. The Court directed the administrative law judge to make specific findings about the condition and its effect on Tutolo’s residual functional capacity, meaning what she could still do despite her limitations.

Disposition

The Court REMANDED the case to the Commissioner. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Tutolo’s motion, Document 24. The Court did not decide that Tutolo was disabled; it required further administrative proceedings because of the identified legal and evaluative errors.